BGen Kristin Goodwin Public Statement on Sexuality
Contrary to the misrepresentations of a few critics, the previous article that mentioned Col Kristin Goodwin simply asked a rhetorical question. It was also an explicitly academic question — given that, as it plainly said, any answer would ultimately be irrelevant.
Most people understood the greater (and explicitly stated) philosophical, academic, and moral points of the article that, as it plainly said, spoke to general cultural and social norms — save for some who seemed to have read it with predisposed prejudices about the Christian faith.
That said, US Air Force BGen(S) Kristin Goodwin has apparently “authorized” a statement of sorts regarding her sexuality. The statement came through Michael “Mikey” Weinstein’s Military Religious Freedom Foundation, not through the Air Force:
MRFF is authorized to advise you that…Brig Gen (Sel) Goodwin…did not become aware of her sexual orientation until well after DADT went into effect.
More interesting is the fact the statement appears to have come about due to a relationship with an MRFF board member:
One of [MRFF’s] board members, Edie Disler, LtCol, USAF (ret), has been in personal contact with Brig Gen (Sel) Goodwin…
Disler — herself a homosexual activist and former USAFA instructor who was sanctioned for her conduct in class — has a colorful history with USAFA and Mikey Weinstein.
The apparent association of the incoming USAFA Commandant of Cadets with Mikey Weinstein could portend a potential end to the state of “war” between Weinstein and USAFA (a war declared unilaterally by Weinstein, that is, when he lost access to USAFA leadership). Could be interesting.
And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
John 8:32
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
John 14:6
ADVERTISEMENT
She wasn’t aware of her sexuality until after DADT. How many homosexual activists will realize that such a statement proves that LGBTs are not “born that way”?
The statement proves nothing AP, you cannot know she wasn’t born that way. To quote SH… “you’re presenting a hypothesis that appeals to a ipse dixit and ad-populous”. For all we know she has been gay all along and despite this she opted to live a heterosexual life for a while and then not to. I know several “always-gay” but hides in a heterosexual life to avoid judgment. I am not a homosexual activists, I’m a realist and believe we are free to choose on this issue and will do anything to protect that right, and likewise, protect the right of religious freedom.
Thanks for some clarity on this situation JD. After reading and posting to your blog, I know you are an honest person and present interesting insight to your readers; I also agree you presented a rhetorical question and meant no ill will towards the general. It does present another interesting question, why did MRFF “release” the fact she was gay at all or believe the IG will see things “their” way? While I believe Mikey and the MRFF does some good for the troops, this does seem a bit hokey and ridiculous.
I’ll err on the side that BGen will do what she has sworn to do; …defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic…. and run the AFA with dignity and honor.
She is not a good example for the Academy or any other position of leadership in the Air Force –
The small percentage of gays in the military should stay that way and not advertise their issues –
I came into this late in the game, but isn’t the question more about DoD policy or AF policy than Goodwin’s sexuality? I’m not sure how DoD handled a current military member who was LGBT prior to DADT and is still serving….think they just swept it under the rug.
Regardless, God hates all sin so let’s not judge less we be judged.
Nick you seem like a voice of reason!
[She] did not become aware of her sexual orientation until well after DADT went into effect.
Well Benjamin, the small percentage of gays really don’t have many issues, except ones like you present; that some believe [they] do not set a good example or belong in leadership positions.
The memo at the link below pretty much prevents such opinions from becoming reality:
http://archive.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_dadt/USD-PR-DADT_Repeal_Day_Memo_20Sep.pdf
She is an American. She is a woman. She has the courage to serve her country. If you can not support any of those things you have lost your way and do not deserve the title of warrior. Why on Earth do you care who she loves, I care how she fights and serves, what kind of officer she is….by all accounts she is excellent in those areas. Could each of you stand up to such scrutiny of your personal life? It is not required, needed or desired. The only effect is to deter well qualified people from serving their country. Being a fighter pilot, all I want is someone who will check my six, stay in the fight with me and do their best each and every mission. PERIOD. Those characteristics do not only come from straight people, men, christians, etc. They are present and absent in people of all religions, sexualities, race, gender, etc. The military has one job…keep America safe, and for that I want the best people the country has to offer. Don’t you?
Shari, by your emotive response, it is not hard to realize that you are a liberal, and ethics really means nothing to you.
Instead of using psycho babbling straw-man arguments, you should learn how to interact with the author? I guess this is what happens when morality is challenged, and you do not like it.
Great input Shari, very articulate and intelligent response. The general is rising to the highest level of responsibly possible, regardless of sexual orientation. The DOD policy states that sexual orientation is a personal and private matter, and in this case, and hopefully all others, it remains so. Keep up these challenges, regardless of who doesn’t like it!!
I applaud and support the author of this blog for standing up for Christian principles and religious freedom. I, too, am a Christian fighter pilot, although long retired from active duty AF flying. In contrast to Weinstein’s comment that Goodwin’s selection should be celebrated, the only aspect of this folly that should be celebrated is that many active duty and retired academy graduates strongly oppose her selection. While I pray that both Weinstein and Goodwin will clearly see and be convicted of the tragic consequences of their immoral lifestyle, I also pray that enough senators will have the guts and backbone to prevent her senate confirmation. She is definitely not an appropriate role model and example for academy cadets and does not set an exemplary personal standard that should be demonstrated by a strong leader. She will likely make it even more difficult for Christians at the academy to enjoy any religious freedom they may have left after the destructive years of Obama and Weinstein. If the academy chooses to support and accept her as the next Commandant, then I will no longer support any academy activities, including my upcoming 50th anniversary as a 1968 USAFA graduate.
@Shari,
I understand in a combat role sexuality or religion may or may not play a factor, but when you are in the role of commandant which is equivalent to the role of president of a college, she has the power to push her gay agenda on cadets if she so chooses. With our colleges these days becoming breeding grounds of liberal indoctrination instead of true educational instruction, the last thing we need is our military academies going liberal as well. I do not have a problem with her as a person, but I do have a problem with her sinful lifestyle and our military is no place as Obama tried to make it, a social experiment!
BF, I agree, any Commander has that ability, be it a gay agenda, a Christian agenda, an atheist agenda. A good Commander will not do such. If they do they should be removed. Why not give her a chance before you condemn her. Simply because she does not live as you see as proper does not make her wrong? If someone removed you from a Command simply because of who you are and not your performance would you like it? Think it fair? Also her distinguished history shows no such inclination. You may have issue with her as a person, as I have had with some of my commanders, but that does not make them bad commanders.
SH, I am emotional about people who choose to serve this country being treated less than equal, is that not one of the very things we are fighting against? My ethics, are just that mine, I don’t look to impose them on you or anyone else, I respectfully suggest you try the same thing. You speak so forcefully and aggressively, you must have something to hide. Whatever it may be it is for you and God. Please don’t take it out on others. Lastly I don’t see people as Liberal or Conservative..that is to simple. People are multi-factited. To label them so simply is the sign of a small thinking mind. I will pray for you!
Because she is gay, she will push the gay agenda?
Will all Christians push a Christian agenda, and are you OK with that?
What about a Hindu who pushes a Hindu agenda?
# Shari,
Sir, it is ironic that you are emotional about others being treated less equal, yet you seem to be treating the Christian fighter pilot (CFP) less equal, simply because you do not like what he has to write. I assume your definition of tolerance would require the CFP to agree with you, or else you will show them just how intolerant you are. How tolerant of you?
When you say, “My ethics, are just that mine, I don’t look to impose them on you or anyone else…” you are being intellectually dishonest. You have been posting several responses on the CFP blog that clearly show you trying to impose your ethics on the CFP.
I think the real problem is not just your hypocrisy; it is the fact that you have elevated yourself to determine the standard of morality.
Lastly, when you denounce the labels of conservative or liberal as simply signs of a small thinking mind, you do not see the irony and hypocrisy in your argument. You have been posting numerous responses on the CFP blog imposing your agenda, and propagating gay rights. Why is it okay for a homosexual to self-identify with the labels “gay, lesbian, and transgender,” but if someone self-identifies as a conservative or liberal, they are just a small thinking mind?
Thanks dude.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 9-10).
SH, please reread my comments. Have I said anyone needs to live by my beliefs? Have I called for people to be fired, not given jobs, dismissed, etc based upon my beliefs of them or their own beliefs? Have I looked to pass laws that deny rights to those who’s beliefs I don’t agree with or a lifestyle of their choosing? The answer is NO to all. Can you say the same? I believe all people are entitled to their opinion and can live their life as they see fit as long as it it lawful and does not harm others. I am not looking to belittle anyone, run people out of jobs they have earned, or need them to agree with me. All I ask is the same from others….can you do that SH??
As for agendas, I have but one agenda. Equal rights for all law abiding Americans, and in particular those who give of themselves to serve their country. To that end, I call out people, laws, etc that seek to deny those rights.
A small thinking mind is one that see’s everything in black and white, or absolutes…they lack the ability to understand that the World is more gray than black or white. People don’t easily fit into a one size fits all description no matter how hard you wish it. If you consider people simply voicing their opinion as “imposing their agenda” , I will answer guilty as charged. But if simply pointing out opposing views is “imposing an agenda”, that speaks volumes about your ability to embrace new and different thoughts, concepts and ideas. Maybe I used the wrong term…small minded may not the most accurate term, close minded is probably a better descriptor.
Finally I would like to address this post of yours: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 9-10).”
I can assume from this, that you live and have lived your life in accordance with this bible passage. So I can assume you have had sex with only the lady or man you are married to(and a virgin if not married), that you have never been drunk, nor ever stolen, nor partied or celebrated to excess, nor have you ever been greedy, or practiced homosexuality, etc. If you can honestly say(to God, not me and the world) that you have not engaged in any of the listed sins I commend you. Also please note that in all of those sins there is no one worse than the others. So greedy is as much a sin as sex outside of marriage, or homosexuality, or stealing. So why no laws to prohibit people who have sex outside of marriage from getting married later? Or greedy people not being allowed to marry? Or Drunkards? Do you apply God’s word evenly and equitably ? If so, bravo, if not why? While we are at it, have you sinned? Have you sinned more than once? Will you be forgiven? What makes your sin anymore or less “ok” than the other sins that are listed? Just curious. Peace be with you, I will keep you in my prayers!
SH, one more thought. you wrote:
“Why is it okay for a homosexual to self-identify with the labels “gay, lesbian, and transgender,” but if someone self-identifies as a conservative or liberal, they are just a small thinking mind?”
If you actually read and understood my post you would know I did not write anything about SELF identifying as a particular label. I talked about one person labeling another simply because of a written sentence, or spoken word….that IS small minded. In your first reposes to my first post you labeled me as liberal….That was my response …to label another person after one written sentence is indeed small minded. Ok, here is the gotcha…reread all the statements…did I ever label you, or anyone? No, that is all you!.
Just to be clear, I have no issue with any person on this page or CFP himself, heck, I probably either flew with or instructed the guy at some point. I do have issue with the belief that a highly decorated and excellent officer should be removed from a job simply because of who she loves. She has no history of “preaching or promoting a homosexual agenda” in her 20+ year career. She does have a history of excellence and achievement. She is more than qualified and will no doubt continue her good wok for the USAF in her new post. BTW, that is how I found this page….the objections to her appointment. Being a fighter pilot as well I was intrigued, but my intrigue turned to horror when I found a number of hurtful, angry, frankly scary posts(not what I expected on a Christian site). I will leave you all in peace, I wish you all the best …..go with God!
@Shari
Or perhaps you were the student.
What’s your opinion of Gen Haight, who was removed from his job simply because of who he loved?
JD,
I said I might of flown with or instructed CFP, in the flying sense. :-) We are all students in life and learn from each other…or at least we should.
I am only vaguely familiar with the case you stated, what i do know is that under the UCMJ adultery can be prosecuted(under article 134) . It sounds like he was an adulterer, but then again so are many officers in the USAF. So why was he one of the few each year that is singled out for punishment under the UCMJ for adultery? Not a clue. Did he upset someone? What I do know is that, at least to my knowledge, BGen(S) Goodwin is not breaking the UCMJ in any way. And I guess that is the rub, when you engage in behavior defined as illegal by your company(the USA in this case), you leave yourself open to all kinds of issues if you make some one mad. Is it fair? Not really, but he was breaking the UCMJ, so he left himself open to being acted against. So while it is tempting to draw parallels between the two cases and basing the argument on losing a job based upon who you love, that is actually disingenuous. The USA lets you love anyone you like, as long as it is not a person different from the one your married to. Do I think he was part of a witch hunt? Yes! Do I think he was in the right? No. DO I think his prosecution was personal? yes. The UCMJ basically says that if the adultery in question meets 3 criteria the Commander can seek prosecution under the UCMJ.
“Factors Commanding Officers Are Required to Consider
The Manual For Courts-Martial now requires commanding officers to consider certain factors when determining whether or not adultery has a direct negative impact on the military, and should be considered a criminal offense:
The accused’s marital status, military rank, grade, or position.
The co-actor’s marital status, military rank, grade, and position, or relationship to the armed forces.
The military status of the accused’s spouse or the spouse of co-actor, or their relationship to the armed forces.
The impact, if any, of the adulterous relationship on the ability of the accused, the co-actor, or the spouse of either to perform their duties in support of the armed forces.”
To be honest, my guess is he pissed of his Commander and had handed the Commander(through his actions) enough ammunition to bring him up on charges under the UCMJ. Finally, and once more, this particular case has no actual similarities with BGen(S) Goodwin. Any similarities are a stretch. His punishment was not about loving who who he wanted, it is about adultery(an affair outside of marriage). A couple decades ago a young Lt Bomber pilot was also bounced from the military for committing adultery. I also know of 2 0-6’s who lost their retirement for adultery. It does happen. Peace
Peace
@Shari
Why do you find it acceptable to put a moral qualifier on his sexual behavior, but not acceptable to put moral qualifiers on others’?
You do realize that for more than 200 years it was illegal to be homosexual and be in the military (even during DADT), right?
No offense, but your standards/criteria seem to be conveniently malleable to whatever works in your favor.
JD,
Mr. Williams has already established that he is his own authority when he said, “My ethics, are just that mine…” This is not ethics; this is superstition, and perversion (Is. 5:20-21).
I pray that God will grant this man repentance (2 Tim. 2:25), and faith in the Gospel (Rom. 3:23-26). I also pray that God has not given him over to a reprobate mind (Rom. 1:28).
JD, I do understand homosexuality was outlawed for hundreds of year, as was civil rights, women suffrage, etc. That does not make it right. A hundred years ago they flew Biplanes into combat..would you now? Times change, people evolve, their views evolve, laws change. We can only live by the laws in place while we are alive, we can seek to change them if we find the offensive. JD, i did not put the moral qualifier on his behavior, the USA(US Army) did via the UCMJ. I care less what he might do as long as he is a good warrior and commander, but the UCMJ should be followed, we swore to it.
SH, my morals are my own, because my beliefs are my own, they are not like anyone else because I am not like anyone else. I do not ask you to live by them. I do not ask you accept them. What you think about me, or my morals matters none to me. Truthfully I care less about yours…until you use your views and or beliefs to judge , discriminate or marginalize others. To seek to deny them what you have simply because you believe different than them. You have no such right, despite what you may think.
I will keep you both in my prayers. I am done here. I had hoped to maybe, just maybe, get folks to open their hearts and minds and realize that they do not sit on higher moral ground then myself, BGen(S) Goodwin or anyone else. We all have sinned, we all continue to sin. God knows that, God still loves us and offers us redemption. You and your sins are no better or worse than me and mine…just different, and God saw fit to make us all different. It is nothing to fear. Peace to you all and I will pray for your souls!
@Shari
That wasn’t the question. The question was why you found it acceptable in this case, but not in others.
That’s the very self-contradiction you don’t seem to realize you have.
The word you seem to be missing is “repentance.” I pray you find it.
@Shari,
If you morals are your own and say mine are my own, then it would be perfectly all right for me to break into your house and rob you blind, because my morals say that is okay for me to do! Right?
BF, morals and beliefs and still subject to the law.
JD, I do not find it acceptable for any person to judge another or put a moral qualifier on another….unlike most of the folks here. That being said when we sign up to serve we are bound by a code, just like we are subject to the laws of the land in this country.
JD, I wish you all the best, and when you stand before God and he asks you why you treated his children so badly you will have to answer. Would you stand for your kids to treat and judge their bothers and sisters as you do God’s children? God is our creator. He is our father. No human is. We are all brothers and sisters. God created us all differently ….on purpose, it was part of the plan. So to marginalize, discriminate and berate Gods’ children is to disrespect God’s creations. Look beyond your beliefs and love all…just like God does!! Let him be the parent, to judge, to dole out punishment. Not humans! For what it is worth I did notice you neglected to publish one of my posts………I think that alone speaks volumes. I pray for you, if you do not love all of God’s children equally and give them the rights God entrusted to them you will be the one who is judged, for if you hurt and discriminate against God’s children you hurt him, just as if someone did it to your children. Peace be with you!
@Shari
Where has anyone been treated badly?
Please cite the reference here where anyone has been marginalized, discriminated against, or berated.
You are confusing differences in theology, ideology, and belief with conduct. It is self-contradictory for you to claim a high ground in tolerance while simultaneously intolerantly characterizing someone else’s beliefs as discrimination, etc.
Why do you assume if someone disagrees they are unloving?
Again, who here is denying anyone rights?
You are arguing with/against a creation of your own imagination. Try reading what’s actually here, rather than what you assume others must think, feel, or do based on your own personal prejudices.
For those readers praising Goodwin, consider this. The AF Academy has an honor code that stresses total honesty during one’s military service. Up until the Obama administration, sodomy, an integral part of the homosexual and lesbian lifestyle, was against the law and punishable under the UCMJ as a court martial offense.
This means that Goodwin, who graduated from the AF Academy in 1993, lived a secretive cadet life in violation of both the spirit of Academy’s honor code and the UCMJ. Regardless of one’s views on the LGBT lifestyle, the fact of the matter is that Goodwin, during the majority of her career, lived a life in deliberate violation of military law.
Neither does Clinton’s policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” give her deceit any real cover. Sodomy was still against the law during that time. That slimy policy, so typical of Clinton, merely allowed her to sneak around the law without acknowledging it.
Now she will be the Commandant of Cadets at the AF Academy and presented as the top example for the cadets of military discipline and obedience to the law.
So, I ask the question, in regard to the above, does her record of service as a cadet and an officer support her elevation to this post? I think not.
Michael Martin
USAFA/1966
She has said that she only became aware of her sexuality more recently than that, so she was not lying or hiding anything.